State v. Hendricks Case Law

Basis of Evidentiary Rulings and Burden of Proof

100

State v. Monarch (1904)

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the state and never shifts to the defendant. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each element of the offense(s) alleged.

200

Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)

Pursuant to 104(A), when evaluating the admissibility of evidence, a trial court is permitted to rely on both admissible and inadmissible evidence. This doesn't make inadmissible evidence admissible, but rather the court is merely permitted to consider the underlying inadmissible evidence in order to assess the admissibility of the offered evidence.

300

State v. Vargas and Field (2015)

A criminal defendant is never required to present evidence or even offer an alternative theory of the crime. If the defendant does so, however, a prosecutor may comment upon the failure of the defense to offer evidence to support its theory of the case.

400

State v. Matthys (2016)

Revisiting State v. Vargas and Field, the court reiterated that during closing argument, a prosecutor may NOT suggest that the defendant needed to provide evidence in order to be found not guilty.

500

State v. Soderberg (2017)

Revisiting State v. Vargas and Field, the court reminded counsel that during cross examination, prosecutors may call into question the existence of documents that the defendant purports to exist but has not produced for trial. It is not improper "burden-shifting" for the prosecutor to point out through cross examination that the defendant has not produced documents or evidence to support a theory or argument that has been advanced by the defense. The prosecutor may NOT suggest that the defendant had an affirmative duty to produce anything in order to be found not guilty.

Trial Procedures and Evidence

100

Kleynman c. Corrado (1945)

The victim in a criminal case in Midlands can be sequestered under MRE 615.

200

Richey v. Bartlett (2002)

In all trials, fact finders may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence. Neither type of evidence should be given categorically more weight that the other

300

Roytman v. Zadie & Zoe's Pet Supply (2000)

Midlands' Circuit Courts are not bound by the rulings of their sister Circuit Courts in other counties, however the decisions have persuasive value.

400

State v. Class (Midlands Cir. Court Breckinridge County 2013)

The defendant was charge with murder. Court ruled that the probative value of the motive of an alleged co-conspirator is substantially outweighed by the danger for unfair prejudice caused by the potential for the jury to associate the co-conspirator's independent actions with the defendant.

500

State v. Sommers (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2015)

The defendant was charged with armed robbery. Prosecution attempted to offer evidence that a coconspirator plotted to rob the same bank with individuals not involved in the robbery in question. Defendant objected under 403. Court overruled the objection.

Credibility and Expert Testimony

100

State v. Lowe (1985)

A criminal defendant's decision to exercise the right not to testify in his/her own defense may NOT be commented upon by the state either explicitly or implicitly. If the defendant testifies, his/her credibility is to be judged like that of any other witness.

200

State v. Poole (2014)

It is improper for the prosecutor to comment at trial upon a defendant's invocation of his/her privilege against self-incrimination. This extends to a defendant's refusal to answer police questions or a decision to invoke his/her right to counsel during an investigation.

300

Davis v. Adams (1993)

Trial judges must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence is not only relevant but reliable. In determining this, judges should consider only the methods employed and the data relied upon, not the conclusions themselves.

400

Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)

In assessing the reliability under Davis v. Adams, judges should consider, among other factors, whether a technique has been or can be tested, whether it is subject to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, and whether it has gained widespread acceptance in the field. These factors, while relevant, are not dispositive. There is no definitive checklist in making a preliminary assessment of whether reasoning or methodology underlying expert testimony is scientifically reliable. Judges must make such assessments based on the totality of the circumstances.

500

Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997)

The court must distinguish experts relying on hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not.

Hearsay and Bifurcation

100

America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2009)

In Midlands it is entirely possible for an out-of-court statement made by a person who is or will be testifying in a particular trial to be excluded by the general rule against hearsay. There is no categorical principle permitting receipt of any out-of-court statement simply because the person who made that out-of-court statement is or will be a witness in the trial.

200

State v. Capaldi (1987)

In a criminal case, a police officer is not considered a "party opponent" for the purpose of the admissibility of a statement made by that officer under MRE 801(d)(2)

300

State v. Chambliss (1985)

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more people to commit some other crime. Occurs when a person agrees with another to (a) commit an offense, (b) attempt to commit an offense, (c) solicit the commission of an offense, or (d) aid another in the planning or commission of an offense.

400

State v. Owens (2010)

For a statement to qualify under 801(d)(2)(e), the proponent must establish the existence of said conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence. The statements may be admitted conditionally under Rule 104. As 801(d)(2)(e) makes clear, proof of the conspiracy may be based in part on the statements themselves, but the proof must also include some independent corroborative evidence.

500

State v. Campbell (2007)

It is improper for an attorney to comment on sentencing or discuss potential penalties during the guilt phase of the trial. Such conduct is grounds for a mistrial and may constitute conduct for which sanctions are appropriate.

Character Evidence and Prior Convictions

100

State v. Delvaux (1986)

Under rule 404(a)(1) a criminal defendant may offer certain evidence of a "pertinent" trait. The requirement that evidence be "pertinent" significantly exceeds the comparably low bar of relevancy. "Pertinence" is a more exacting standard by which the trait itself must directly relate to a particular element or facet of the crime charged.

200

State v. Bitterly (Midlands Cir. Court Breckinridge County 2007)

The defendant had a prior theft for stealing video games from a store. The court ruled that the prior theft was admissible under rule 609 because the theft was inherently dishonest since the defendant meant to take the video games without the store's knowledge.

300

State v. Peaches (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2009)

The court erred in allowing evidence of a defendant's conviction for shoplifting in 2000 because it was not a "dishonest" theft. The defendant walked into a liquor store and drank 5 40 ounce bottle of Natural Light before leaving without paying.

400

State v. Clement (2014)

The court notes that Midlands had separate charges of "theft" and "theft by deception".

500

State v. Hunley (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2017)

The trial court erred when it excluded evidence of a prior conviction of a defendant just because the defendant did not testify. While Rule 609 requires that a defendant testifies, the court failed to consider whether the conviction would be admissible for other rules, such as 404.